Facilitators have identified three themes among the case statements for discussion in the weeks ahead. They are: “Ethics and Economics of Community Histories/Heritages,” “Ethical Training for Laboring Realities,” and “Shared Authority in Perspectives.” Please join the discussion by adding your comments below. Feel free to re-direct the conversation toward important ideas, oversights or nuances. Disagreement and contention welcome, respectfully.
3) Shared authority seems to be a persistent sticking point lingering behind the entire conversation. Should historians be “neutral” (Rachael), “allowing the general public to judge” (Nichelle)? Or do public historians need to be “diplomatic and nuanced” (Dan) as they use history as a “a corrective to heritage” (John)? What do we do when adhering to shared authority means compromising “the hard won right public history professional have earned to opine on what is fact and what is not”? (Ted) Is there more to be said for the power of explicitly utilizing history to facilitate “political and economic action” (Catherine)? Does this mean moving beyond existing economic models (Rachel)?